The world turned upside down

Monday, July 17, 2006

Are we in the world of Alice Through the Looking Glass or 1984? I can't quite believe how bad are the responses to Israel's attack on Lebanon, and wonder why we have entered a world where lies are truth, where everything is the opposite of what it should be.

My increasing sense of disbelief began with Tony Blair's statement a couple of weeks ago that the Muslim community in Britain had grievances against the West which were 'false'. You might not agree with those grievances, but they are based on fact: Britain did invade Afghanistan and Iraq; the situation does go from bad to worse in both countries; Britain does back Israel as a key ally in the Middle East and does little to help the plight of the Palestinians; and Britain does support some of the worst dictatorships in the Middle East.

The feeling has come back to me in recent days. The BBC news website reports today that Tony Blair and UN secretary general Kofi Annan have called for an international force (aka Britain and the US) to be sent to Lebanon..to stop attacks on Israel. Tony Blair explained this is to 'stop the bombardment coming over into Israel and therefore gives Israel a reason to stop its attacks on Hezbollah'.

Sorry? Hezbollah kidnapped 2 Israeli soldiers and Israel responded by bombing Lebanon, blockading its ports and airports, bombing its roads, and killing so far more than 130 Lebanese civilians.

Yet the main news channels in Britain led yesterday on 8 Israelis killed by a rocket in Haifa, only then going on to mention 16 Lebanese dead in Tyre, bombing of civilian convoys and the fact that Lebanese/Israeli deaths are running at a ratio of more than 5:1.

This painting of Hezbollah as the aggressors against 'plucky little Israel' is sickening enough. But then there's the accusation that Iran is arming Hezbollah. And who's arming Israel, the only nuclear power in the Middle East and the one possessed of the largest and most deadly arsenal? Israel is the biggest recipient of US military aid, and the only state in the world that can buy arms directly from US arms corporations without the oversight of the US government.

No wonder then that the G8 gathering of the world's largest powers meeting in St Petersburg issued a statement effectively allowing Israel to continue its state terror against its northern neighbour. It contains the following: 'The immediate crisis results from efforts by extremist forces to destabilise the region and to frustrate the aspirations of the Palestinian, Israeli and Lebanese people for democracy and peace.'

Well, the Palestinians' aspiration for democracy and peace was expressed through the democratic election of a Hamas government earlier this year, which the Israelis are trying to destroy. Hezbollah is in the Lebanese government and has mass support. So who exactly is attacking democracy?

We're in a new phase now with this war. As one person put it at our Stop the War steering committee on Saturday, the attack on Iran has already begun. That's why Israel, the US and Britain are so keen to go for Hezbollah, because it makes it easier for them to attack Iran. The threat as they see it of a greater Iran stems from the failure of the occupation of Iraq. And we may be witnessing the changeover from the main reason for war being Iran's nuclear capability to the main reason being its role in terrorism.

Don't expect anything good.

7/17/2006 02:19:00 PM | Permalink

When self defence is an offence

Thursday, July 13, 2006

What do you do when Hizbollah captures two Israeli soldiers? The answer's obvious: bomb civilian areas of Lebanon killing whole families, cut off the south from the capital by destroying bridges and roads,impose an air and sea blockade on Lebanon, and, just to ensure it's successful, bomb the runways at Beirut airport.

You might think the response excessive, but not according to Israeli form. After all, the kidnap of one Israeli soldier by Palestinians led to the destruction of the power supply in Gaza, the arrest of Hamas ministers and attacks which killed more than 70 Palestinians.

'Pity the nation' was the title of Robert Fisk's book on the war in Lebanon. The phrase has been in my head the past two days as the situation has deteriorated. Lebanon's fragile peace is cracking.

While many in the Middle East may envy Lebanon its natural beauty, few can envy its geography, sharing its southern border with Israel. To its east is Syria, Israel's main protagonist in the region, which backs Hizbollah.

War is spreading across the region. Predictably, George Bush has condemned Hizbollah, saying that Israel has the right to defend itself. How is bombing Beirut airport defending yourself? Hizbollah couldn't do the same to Tel Aviv airport. There is some doubt whether its rockets could reach more than a few miles into Israel.

That's because Israel is the most heavily armed country in the region and has weapons which its opponents cannot match. But the problem doesn't just lie with Israel. US and British foreign policy lies in tatters in Iraq, Afghanistan and across the region. They know that Israel is off the leash but to rein their watchdog in would be to admit defeat in these wider wars.

This particularly affects them in the fight against terrorism. The 'war on terror' is a barrier to political solutions. Its mantras that we can't deal with terrorists
or that we have to root out terrorism ignore the role that the war on terror has played in increasing terrorism.

It also ignores the different definitions of 'terrorist'. For many people in Palestine or Lebanon, Hamas and Hizbollah are not terrorists at all. They are elected representatives (in both the Palestinian and Lebanese governments), providers of welfare and services such as education, and even freedom fighters. To accuse Iran or Syria of supporting terrorism by supporting these groups misses the point that large sections of the Arab world and beyond support them.

Here too, the division of the world into peace loving democrats against terrorists
obscures more than it clarifies. But then, that's what they want to do. Otherwise someone might point out that cutting off water, food or electricity, or bombing innocent people is a form of oppression which might be called state terror.

7/13/2006 03:53:00 PM | Permalink

Crime after crime

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

I felt a chill when I first read, a few days ago, that US soldiers in Iraq were suspected of raping a young woman, and of then murdering her and her family. Now a former US serviceman _recently discharged with a 'personality disorder'_ has been charged in North Carolina with rape and murder.

One bad apple, you might say, but it seems that up to five soldiers were involved. So five bad apples. But it's a little bit more than that. For a start, US officials initially put this down to sectarian violence between Iraqis. That means it wasn't regarded as noteworthy, or subject to much investigation. Yet it's obvious that local people knew much of what had happened. The mayor of Mahmudiya, the town where the events took place, said that the young woman was just 16 when her life was ended in such a terrible way.

The accusations came to light because those accused were from the same platoon as two soldiers who were captured by guerrillas nearby and were killed and mutilated. According to an unnamed officer quoted by Associated Press, this stirred feelings of guilt and led one soldier to reveal the alleged crime.

It's surely right to assume that events weren't a total secret among the soldiers. But nothing came out until over 3 months after the attack.

On the face of it few could have any sympathy for Steven Green, the accused ex soldier. Now he faces civilian prosecution and possibly the death penalty. How convenient for the military authorities, that he will be treated as a criminal acting on his own rather than as part of an oppressive occupying force.

Rape in wartime is unfortunately common. It happens because one side dehumanises the other and is part of the brutal package of injury, destruction and death which afflicts civilian populations in such times. The modern occupiers of the Middle East like to think they are above this sort of thing. But the story of the past 3 years proves them wrong. Once you occupy a country then you begin to see its people as less than you, as people whose life is cheap, whose sensibilities don't match those of your own loved ones.

Many individual soldiers probably hate this situation _we know the discontent among British and US troops is quite widespread _ but there is a hideous logic to being in this position. Look at Fallujah, Ramadi and all the other towns laid waste by the occupation forces, and look at how they have attacked, injured and killed Iraqis. They see it differently: the population are either insurgents, or giving aid to insurgents. So they attack, and so push the population into greater opposition.

Civilians are often the biggest casualties of war these days and women bear much of the brunt. In Iraq, they face food, electricity and water shortages, child malnutrition, restrictions on movement and dress, kidnapping, rape and death and injury to them or their families. Hardly the picture of emancipation which the liberal imperialists claim is such an imperative for war.

Just two questions though: how much do the officers, and security men, and diplomats know about the behaviour of the troops? And how many injuries, rapes or deaths have been inflicted by the occupying troops under cover of 'sectarian violence'?

7/04/2006 01:26:00 PM | Permalink